There are a number of variables which must be taken into
account when comparing the nature and extent of outstanding DWI
warrants between jurisdictions. These include:

Different laws, guidelines and regulations pertaining to warrants.
DWI warrants are issued under different circumstances in different jurisdictions.
Sometimes wants or order-ins are issued in place of
warrants. Sometimes multiple warrants are issued for separate instances of
errant behavior (FTA/FTC) related to a single offense, sometimes those occurring
simultaneously or close together are combined in one warrant. Some jurisdictions
have time limitations before a warrant expires, others do not and warrants
continue to accumulate. Some jurisdictions are bounded by distance restrictions,
others are not and may allow service of warrants anywhere within the state
or even beyond state boundaries.

The recording of warrants and the capture or compilation of information.
Some jurisdictions, especially smaller ones, may not have access to any lists
or compiled information, but only separate paper files. Other jurisdictions
maintain or have access to every variety of data, but there may be confusion
and duplicate or incomplete information on a number of data systems. The reliability
and ready access of up-to-date information may be lacking. Statewide databases
may be available but incomplete, especially regarding DWI offenses. Databases
maintained by one traffic law system organization may not be accessible to
other judicial systems or law enforcement agencies.

Responsibility for serving warrants. Various law enforcement agencies
are responsible for serving warrants among different jurisdictions. All warrants
may be sent to a Sheriff's organization, or they may be returned to the original
arresting agency. Multiple law enforcement agencies may join forces to staff
warrant squads. Warrant service costs are handled in a variety of ways from
grant monies to portions of fines/fees levied against DWI offenders. Felony
warrants, out of necessity, are treated differently and given a higher priority
than misdemeanor warrants.

Also, due to the differences between the sites regarding
population size, availability of data, system and agency
procedural variances, only general comparisons can be made. There
was a natural tendency at many sites for authorities to shy away
from any publicity, even though they were not certain if there
was a problem of any magnitude concerning outstanding DWI
warrants in their jurisdictions. For this reason, it is important
to acknowledge the contributions made by those sites which
provided information and data, even if incomplete.

The largest problems in relation to the data provided were
that verification was not often possible and databases from the
same site usually could not be linked so that records could be
matched. For example, we could not link specific arrests with
warrants either because unique identifying information was not
provided due to confidentiality issues, or because two of the
same fields of information were not available in the separate
databases to allow matching to occur.

Among the law enforcement agencies, many we spoke with noted
that operational budgets were tight and personnel were
overburdened with other pressing issues such as community
policing, and drug-related crimes. Currently, DWI warrants are
just not a top priority in many jurisdictions.

Neither courts nor law enforcement agencies in most areas
receive any monetary assistance when attempting to locate
defaulters. Consequently, without funding, the number of
outstanding warrants continues to grow. (Note: In several
communities, such as Chemung County, New York and Merced County,
California, this was not the case, due to the program set up to
deal with DWI offenders and defaulters.)

As noted earlier in this report, the three Appendices
highlight three programs which were designed specifically to deal
with outstanding warrants. Any of these programs could be
implemented for use by similarly sized communities, with various
modifications made to handle the specific needs of local
jurisdictions.

SITE COMPARISON

The sites covered during this project were those with
something specific to offer to the project in terms of data
and/or methods of dealing with defaulters for which warrants have
been issued. Following is a list of the different types of
programs or methods that different jurisdictions which
participated in this project have in place to serve warrants.

Dedicated Warrant Officer(s). The sole or primary
job description for these individuals is to serve
warrants.

Special Emphasis Squads or Stings.
These teams are organized periodically to locate and
serve warrants.

Interagency Cooperative Warrant Squads. Warrant
teams are staffed by a number of law enforcement agencies
who cooperate to serve warrants. These teams are
sometimes organized on a regular basis, and sometimes in
response to a large number of outstanding warrants.

Part of a Full-Fledged, Anti-DWI Program. Warrant
service is handled routinely as a part of an existing
anti-DWI program.

Routine Warrant Service by Arresting Officers.
Warrants are handled by the original arresting officer or
agency.

In Table 6, a determination of the more problematic
type of defaulter (i.e., those who fail to appear - FTA, or those
who fail to comply with sanctions - FTC) in relation to DWI
offenses is indicated, where possible, by site. Five sites
indicated more problems with FTA behavior, four with FTC
behavior, five sites reported substantial problems with both, and
three sites could not determine which problem was more prevalent
through the records provided by their data systems. Those sites
which have a system in place to provide data on outstanding
warrants are indicated in the table below, as well as those sites
which have a specific ongoing program to regularly serve
DWI-related warrants.

Site (Estimated Population)

FTA

FTC

Data System In Place

Program In Place

California, Merced County (201,000)

*

Colorado, El Paso County (490,000)

--

--

Indiana, Hancock County (55,000)

--

Massachusetts (6.2 M)

--

Nebraska, Douglas County (446,277)

--

--

--

Nebraska, Lancaster County (444,000)

--

--

--

New York, Chemung County (92,000)

--

Ohio, Pickaway County (53,700)

--

--

Oregon, Deschutes County (105,600)

--

--

--

Puerto Rico (3.8 M)

--

--

--

Texas, Austin (567,566)

--

--

Utah, Other Combined Jurisdictions (1.1 M)

--

Utah, Salt Lake City (174,348)

--

Utah, Salt Lake County (845,913)

--

Vermont (593,740)

--

--

Vermont, Chittenden County (143,947)

--

--

*

Washington, Pierce County (665,000)

*soon to be implemented

SUMMARY

The time has come to deal with the complicated issue of outstanding warrants.
Strides are being made in an increasing number of communities across the country
to deal with the situation. Although the degrees of the severity of the problem
of warrants vary widely, more information provided to jurisdictions on the commonality
of the problem and possible resolutions, can encourage innovative solutions.
This process should be encouraged through technical assistance and supportive
funding efforts, specifically earmarked for diagnosing and resolving this problem.